From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #3 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Friday, February 4 2000 Volume 01 : Number 003 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 16:22:25 +0100 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU At 02:14 PM 2/3/2000 , A.M. Rutkowski wrote: >for the DNSO which one would expect to be >an essential part of this process. Unless one (correctly) views this as falling within existing ccTLD practise. >1. The central proposition of the paper is >that "...the corresponding [ccTLD] code is >a form of unambiguous identification and location >of the activity." The term "activity" is not >explained. This proposition constitutes the >primary underpinning for the EU domain proposal, >which asserts that this is desirable "...to >ensure the appropriate degree of adherence >to European law and policies...." > >Is it appropriate or even feasible for >DNS registration to constitute a form of >authentication as the fundamental basis >for the application of European law? Is it appropriate or even feasible to explain the non sequitor of this question, since the EU text does not make a statement concerning authentication? Is it apppropriate or even feasible to find a way to trivialize things more than nit-pick about the details of "activity"? Is there, perhaps, a more constructive "activity" to which to apply an attorney's training? >2. The paper contradicts itself. It states >in Sec. 5 that "this principle [that there >should be a tangible relationship between the >principle location of the entity concerned >and the territorial scope of the ccTLD >registry] is respected in practice by all >national ccTLD Registries within the EU." >... >The paper obliquely concedes this fact >in footnote 2 by asserting that these four >member country ccTLD registries may not >be in conformance with European Law and >are "under consideration [i.e., being >investigated] by the Commission." Is >anyone aware of this investigation? Language which says that exceptions to a principle or rule are under investigation does not contradict other language which says that there should be conformance to a principle or rule. Surely it is possible to offer critique the EU document constructively, without resorting to distortion and trivialization? d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 16:39:52 -0500 From: Milton Mueller Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs Jay: I doubt if anyone is dismissing the notion of a regional TLD. Many of us support any number of new TLDs, including regional ones. The problem with .EU is the method by which the proposal is being promoted. .EU is really just a new TLD that certain Europeans want to compete with dot com, yet it is being advanced as a kind of quasi-ccTLD. This is both dishonest and a case of queue-jumping. The advocates of EU have refused to respect the DNSO's procedures, but instead are attempting to use sheer political muscle to get a delegation. This sets a dangerous precedent. As Rutkowski has already pointed out, there is a large measure of hypocrisy in the request. For two or three years the EC insisted that dot com and the other gTLDs were international in scope and needed to be regulated on an international basis, via ICANN. They got what they wanted. Now they're saying that com isn't really global, it's North American, and when it comes to THEIR own regional TLD, it doesn't have to do through ICANN's DNSO it can just be created via political fiat. This request has disastrous consequences for DNSO and its procedures if its successful. It says that DNSO is a sideshow. It says that the little folk can play around with working groups and follow the rules all they like, but if the big guys with guns decide they want something it will happen. This working group has documented an overwhelming consensus for the addition of a significant number of new TLDs. There will be room for a .eu and many others once we settle the implementation issues. If that process is short-circuited via a end-around .EU delegation we've all been wasting our time. Jay Parker wrote: > The .eu debate is complicated, that much is clear. However, there are areas > of the globe, such as the Caribbean Basin, which could benefit tremendously > from the kind of community a regional TLD could foster. Unlike the EU, which ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 13:52:16 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs > This working group has documented an overwhelming consensus for the addition of > a significant number of new TLDs. There will be room for a .eu and many others > once we settle the implementation issues. If that process is short-circuited via > a end-around .EU delegation we've all been wasting our time. It's worse than a simple waste of time, really. Christopher ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 18:04:06 -0500 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU We are al still waiting with bated breath for a citation to ab authoritative text which supports the proposition that .eu may not be delegated to the EC as a region. >>> Joseph Friedman 02/03/00 04:22PM >>> Eric, There is a differance between a _proposed_ authoritive text and an existing policy. The proposed text is not (and may not become) policy. What I stated was the policy as it stands today. - --Joseph On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Eric Brunner wrote: > [Going over the daily limit, but stopping here for the day] > > Joseph, > > My query has to do with the authoritative source for the asserted policy > that two octet length TLDs in the IN class consisting of letters are > reserved, and to whom. > > In the early versions of draft-ietf-dnsind-iana-dns-0?.txt we (Eastlake, > Manning and Brunner) wrote: > > version -00 > > All two octet length TLDs in the IN class consisting of letters are > reserved for assignment to territories. Those (1) allocated by [ISO > 3166] and (2) allocated by the Universal Postal Union [UPU] and > reserved in [ISO 3166] even though not formally assigned by [ISO > 3166] (e.g., a few British Channel Islands), are assigned as so > allocated by the generally recognized acting government of the area > associated with the "country code" or on a first come first served > basis to a designated registry if there is no such government or the > government has not exercised control. > ... > Country codes consisting of a letter and a digit or two digits are > not currently used by [ISO 3166] or the [UPU]. However, to permit > possible expansion of the two octet country codes, they are reserved > for future allocation as described in the previous paragraph. > > version -01 > > Two octet length ASCII label TLDs in the Internet CLASS consisting of > letters are for assignment to geo-political territories. Those (1) > allocated by [ISO 3166] and (2) allocated by the Universal Postal > Union [UPU] and reserved in [ISO 3166] even though not formally > assigned by [ISO 3166], are assigned as so allocated. Two letter > codes reserved by [ISO 3166] for local use or the like are also > reserved as TLDs as are two letter TLDs not yet allocated or reserved > by [ISO 3166] or the [UPU]. A generally recognized acting government > of the territory associated with a "country code" has priority to act > as or designate the registrar for such TLDs. > > By version -03 we'd removed all reference to 3166. Now as the authors of > the proposed authoritative text on the Domain Name System (DNS) IANA > considerations, relative to the two-octet ASCII labels, I'm really very > curious where the assertion you made finds its authoritative reference. > > Cheers, > Eric > ********************************************************************** The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 15:44:45 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Kevin, In the internet there is no such thing. These things were always at the whim of Dr Postel as long as he didn't raize the ire of the NSF. Now with the DoC being involved and ICANN doing what it pleases, anything is probably fair game. But the fact remains that he is correct, it is the current practice, and I fully support it remaining that way. So then the question remains, do regions qualify for "regional" domains in the ccTLD class? Interesting question. But rather than places them in the 2 letter domain category traditionally reserved for ISO-3166 based delegation, I would much prefer to see them use a 3 letter variation, like .eur, which makes more sense anyway. I also think that Milton has it spot on. There is absolutely NO reason why the European Union proposal should be considered as ANY different from any new TLD, and subject to all of the processes that are being developed for same. On 03-Feb-2000 Kevin J. Connolly wrote: > We are al still waiting with bated breath for a citation to ab authoritative > text which supports the proposition that .eu may not be delegated to the EC > as a region. > >>>> Joseph Friedman 02/03/00 04:22PM >>> > Eric, > > There is a differance between a _proposed_ authoritive text and an > existing policy. The proposed text is not (and may not become) policy. > What I stated was the policy as it stands today. > > --Joseph > > On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Eric Brunner wrote: > >> [Going over the daily limit, but stopping here for the day] >> >> Joseph, >> >> My query has to do with the authoritative source for the asserted policy >> that two octet length TLDs in the IN class consisting of letters are >> reserved, and to whom. >> >> In the early versions of draft-ietf-dnsind-iana-dns-0?.txt we (Eastlake, >> Manning and Brunner) wrote: >> >> version -00 >> >> All two octet length TLDs in the IN class consisting of letters are >> reserved for assignment to territories. Those (1) allocated by [ISO >> 3166] and (2) allocated by the Universal Postal Union [UPU] and >> reserved in [ISO 3166] even though not formally assigned by [ISO >> 3166] (e.g., a few British Channel Islands), are assigned as so >> allocated by the generally recognized acting government of the area >> associated with the "country code" or on a first come first served >> basis to a designated registry if there is no such government or the >> government has not exercised control. >> ... >> Country codes consisting of a letter and a digit or two digits are >> not currently used by [ISO 3166] or the [UPU]. However, to permit >> possible expansion of the two octet country codes, they are reserved >> for future allocation as described in the previous paragraph. >> >> version -01 >> >> Two octet length ASCII label TLDs in the Internet CLASS consisting of >> letters are for assignment to geo-political territories. Those (1) >> allocated by [ISO 3166] and (2) allocated by the Universal Postal >> Union [UPU] and reserved in [ISO 3166] even though not formally >> assigned by [ISO 3166], are assigned as so allocated. Two letter >> codes reserved by [ISO 3166] for local use or the like are also >> reserved as TLDs as are two letter TLDs not yet allocated or reserved >> by [ISO 3166] or the [UPU]. A generally recognized acting government >> of the territory associated with a "country code" has priority to act >> as or designate the registrar for such TLDs. >> >> By version -03 we'd removed all reference to 3166. Now as the authors of >> the proposed authoritative text on the Domain Name System (DNS) IANA >> considerations, relative to the two-octet ASCII labels, I'm really very >> curious where the assertion you made finds its authoritative reference. >> >> Cheers, >> Eric >> > > > ********************************************************************** > The information contained in this electronic message is confidential > and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work > product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, > and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of > this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- > munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- > cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk > at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com > ********************************************************************** - - -- William X. Walsh DSo Networks http://dso.net/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: DSo Networks iD8DBQE4mhLt8zLmV94Pz+IRAiy0AJ9lsM66apa5T1EJju6eZNyjdWmIcACgw+1C A8ct+IJhAmQkTOZjXixWo0Q= =RTOf - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 19:21:53 -0500 From: Harold Feld Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs This was my point fro my earlier post (which appears to have attracted no interest). The process of adding new regional TLDs needs a *process*, not an ad hoc invention. The DNSO is the logic place to begin developing such a process. (If it isn't, what is? ICANN staff? A new working group? Something else?) If .EU and .pa (or whatever the Palestinian Authority asked for) were isolated cases, an ad hoc decision by the Board might be appropriate. But, as Jay Parker's message suggests, we are likely to see numerous applications from regional entities. (Many regional multinational entities that are the product of an international treaty exist, some with overlapping members.) In addition, a number of quasi-states, semi- sovereign organizations, etc. exist, and I predict they will seek TLDs. Contrary to Dave Crocker, I do not believe there is a "ccTLD process" that handles this. The bulk of the ccTLD delegations took place well before the formation of ICANN, and ICANN's relationship with the ccTLDs is still vague. I will now once agian make my usual plea for this working group, the DNSO, and ICANN to view this as an opportunity to create a process, rather than focusing on the merits of the particular application. I would be extremely happy if: 1) There were an articularted process to handle applications for new TLDs that do not conveniently fall into the "gTLD/ccTLD" classification. 2) This working group and the DNSO, which are constituted to deal with naming issues, were involved in formulating process. Please note I am *not* suggesting that this working group or the DNSO should pass on the merits of the applications. Frankly, I do not believe that should be our role. I do believe, however, that the DNSO, its relevant constituencies, and the relevant working groups should be involved in shaping the process. Done right, this presents an opportunity for meaningfull input, a demonstration that ICANN can function to generate policy in a new area, and creates buy-in from participants in the process. Done wrong, it will disolve into the usual combative fray and ill-feeling. Harold Jay Parker wrote: > The .eu debate is complicated, that much is clear. However, there are areas > of the globe, such as the Caribbean Basin, which could benefit tremendously > from the kind of community a regional TLD could foster. Unlike the EU, which > has member states enjoying robust country code business and relatively > healthy economies, the Caribbean is making slow progess (or no progress) in > that arena, and could utilize a regional designation to create social and > economic opportunities as a collective. There's really no debating the idea > that, in general, the region could use all the economic opportunity it can > get. > > Here's my point: I would hope the notion of a regional TLD, like .eu, would > not be dismissed completely, even if that particular TLD is deemed to be > unneccesary. > > Jay Parker > West Indies Communications Group > International Trust House > 180 East Bay Street > Charleston, South Carolina 29401 > USA > tel: +843-805-8460 > fax: +843-805-8466 > www.westcomgroup.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 18:21:15 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 03:44:45PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: [...] > I also think that Milton has it spot on. There is absolutely NO > reason why the European Union proposal should be considered as ANY > different from any new TLD, and subject to all of the processes that are > being developed for same. Processes that are not being developed, you mean. In my opinion anyone that supports new TLDs in ANY form should support the .eu proposal. It should be clear to anyone paying attention that if processes are being developed it is happening at such a slow rate that it isn't visible to the naked eye. The gears are completely stuck, and we need movement to get them unstuck. You should not think of the .eu proposal as the enemy; you should think of it as something flushing through that may unblock the stoppage. Umm. Interesting metaphor. But seriously -- it may take something with the political force of the EU to get *ANY* TLD through the system. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 18:31:40 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 04-Feb-2000 Kent Crispin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 03:44:45PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: > [...] >> I also think that Milton has it spot on. There is absolutely NO >> reason why the European Union proposal should be considered as ANY >> different from any new TLD, and subject to all of the processes that are >> being developed for same. > > Processes that are not being developed, you mean. > > In my opinion anyone that supports new TLDs in ANY form should support > the .eu proposal. It should be clear to anyone paying attention that > if processes are being developed it is happening at such a slow rate > that it isn't visible to the naked eye. The gears are completely > stuck, and we need movement to get them unstuck. You should not think > of the .eu proposal as the enemy; you should think of it as something > flushing through that may unblock the stoppage. Umm. Interesting > metaphor. > > But seriously -- it may take something with the political force of the EU > to get *ANY* TLD through the system. The problem with ANY attempt like this one happening in the fashion it is, is that this becomes the ONLY way TLDs get in the root. And that is why it must be opposed. Not the concept, the methodology. EU should instead be promoting the furtherance of the process for creating new TLDs. - - -- William X. Walsh DSo Networks http://dso.net/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: DSo Networks iD8DBQE4mjoM8zLmV94Pz+IRAtMVAKDTXRq7+0hvKi7Q8yuNVCiff2e/twCdH7Vw k0HNgOPDHVSaFdTgY8OEcF4= =BSQP - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 19:02:22 -0800 From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of > Milton Mueller > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 1:40 PM Hello Milton, For the most part, I agree with both you and Tony. > Jay: > I doubt if anyone is dismissing the notion of a regional TLD. > Many of us support > any number of new TLDs, including regional ones. The problem with > .EU is the > method by which the proposal is being promoted. .EU is really > just a new TLD > that certain Europeans want to compete with dot com, yet it is > being advanced as > a kind of quasi-ccTLD. This is both dishonest and a case of > queue-jumping. The > advocates of EU have refused to respect the DNSO's procedures, > but instead are > attempting to use sheer political muscle to get a delegation. This sets a > dangerous precedent. However, you make an argument for process here and there just isn't one. For the most part, we are lacking process definition terms and the actual procedures themselves. The EU want to move forward NOW and I can understand their desire. Ergo, they are moving forward with the best analysis of process that they can come up with. Lacking a clearly defined process ourselves, who can say that they are wrong? The old process for adding TLDs to the root was ad hoc, at best. Certainly it was/is haphazard. I can also understand the EU losing patience with this whole schtick. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 22:14:55 -0500 From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU At 09:21 PM 2/3/00 , Kent Crispin wrote: >But seriously -- it may take something with the political force of the EU >to get *ANY* TLD through the system. So how does this square with Art. IV (c) of the corporation's Bylaws which the officers and directors of the corporation have a fiduciary duty to follow: (c) The Corporation shall not apply its standards, policies, procedures or practices inequitably or single out any particular party for disparate treatment unless justified by substantial and reasonable cause, such as the promotion of effective competition. Inquiring minds would want to know the substantial and reasonable cause applicable here. - -amr ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 22:58:15 +0100 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU At 10:22 PM 2/3/2000 , Joseph Friedman wrote: >There is a differance between a _proposed_ authoritive text and an >existing policy. The proposed text is not (and may not become) policy. >What I stated was the policy as it stands today. Joseph, You were asked to quote the authority that justifies your assertion. The term "authority" does not mean cite an organization or document. It is a request for something far more specific. It means cite the specific text, as well as specifying its origin and basis for use as authoritative. In light of the current confusion, you will do well also to include a copy of that text. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 20:58:19 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Kent Said... >In my opinion anyone that supports new TLDs in ANY form should >support the .eu proposal. It should be clear to anyone paying >attention that if processes are being developed it is happening at >such a slow rate that it isn't visible to the naked eye. The gears >are completely >stuck, and we need movement to get them unstuck. Absolutely. .EU can get in line, behind all of the existing applications for new TLDs. Apply the process to them, and .EU in its turn. To take action on .EU before other existing, waiting TLD applications is to invite trouble, not to mention unfair, and, at best, unethical. I hesitate to think about what it is at worst. Christopher - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use Comment: Signed and Encrypted EMail preferred. Fnord. iQA/AwUBOJpca8kU7GoO9fgUEQJ6hQCdH5TtJF4WW+Nwx+4KPJiDhzdZvOcAn3Ic Phft4hwcc6halLA0BboBB93/ =EULy - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 21:02:47 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >However, you make an argument for process here and there just isn't >one. For the most part, we are lacking process definition terms and >the actual procedures themselves. The EU want to move forward NOW >and I can understand their desire. Ergo, they are moving forward >with the best analysis of process that they can come up with. >Lacking a clearly defined process ourselves, who can say that they >are wrong? The old process for adding TLDs to the root was ad hoc, >at best. Certainly it was/is haphazard. > >I can also understand the EU losing patience with this whole >schtick. Too bad that what they're doing is the exact kind of action that got other prospective TLD proposers called rather angry names. Existing TLD applicants have been told that they must wait for the process. They've been told this for over 4 years now. And now .EU comes along, with some weight to throw around, and it's all-of-a-sudden all right?! Not by a long shot. If .EU moves forward through these, at best unethical channels, you can expect other TLDs to use anything at their disposal to get the same results. Indeed, the addition of .EU will make it only that much easier. Christopher - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use Comment: Signed and Encrypted EMail preferred. Fnord. iQA/AwUBOJpdd8kU7GoO9fgUEQI4vwCgv/Car6Ub2G4bRl1amvznfLizum4AoPTL L9fz2SR7ykVdemmLt+nZaEZV =hUTu - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 03:06:54 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Friedman Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU Dave, What constitutes "authoritative" for this issue? - --Joseph On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Dave Crocker wrote: > At 10:22 PM 2/3/2000 , Joseph Friedman wrote: > >There is a differance between a _proposed_ authoritive text and an > >existing policy. The proposed text is not (and may not become) policy. > >What I stated was the policy as it stands today. > > Joseph, > > You were asked to quote the authority that justifies your assertion. > > The term "authority" does not mean cite an organization or document. It is > a request for something far more specific. > > It means cite the specific text, as well as specifying its origin and basis > for use as authoritative. > > In light of the current confusion, you will do well also to include a copy > of that text. > > d/ > > =-=-=-=-= > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg Consulting > Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 > 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 00:29:41 -0800 From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs Hello Chris, I was quite well aware of the context when I said what I did. I also agree with you. My meaning was to say that I understood the motivation. I never claimed to condone it, or maybe I did. To put it bluntly, this whole process is taking way too long, with endless delays and speed-bumps thrown in almost haphazardly. There is going to come a time when unilateral action will be taken by someone. EU is just building up the pressure some more. The higher the pent-up demand, the greater the chance that someone will actually take unilateral action. Chris, I would think that you would welcome this. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of > Christopher Ambler > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 9:03 PM > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > >However, you make an argument for process here and there just isn't > >one. For the most part, we are lacking process definition terms and > >the actual procedures themselves. The EU want to move forward NOW > >and I can understand their desire. Ergo, they are moving forward > >with the best analysis of process that they can come up with. > >Lacking a clearly defined process ourselves, who can say that they > >are wrong? The old process for adding TLDs to the root was ad hoc, > >at best. Certainly it was/is haphazard. > > > >I can also understand the EU losing patience with this whole > >schtick. > > Too bad that what they're doing is the exact kind of action that got > other prospective TLD proposers called rather angry names. > > Existing TLD applicants have been told that they must wait for the > process. They've been told this for over 4 years now. And now .EU > comes along, with some weight to throw around, and it's > all-of-a-sudden > all right?! > > Not by a long shot. > > If .EU moves forward through these, at best unethical channels, you > can expect other TLDs to use anything at their disposal to get the > same results. Indeed, the addition of .EU will make it only that > much easier. > > Christopher > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use > Comment: Signed and Encrypted EMail preferred. Fnord. > > iQA/AwUBOJpdd8kU7GoO9fgUEQI4vwCgv/Car6Ub2G4bRl1amvznfLizum4AoPTL > L9fz2SR7ykVdemmLt+nZaEZV > =hUTu > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 19:56:43 -0000 From: "Penman, Ian" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU It is clear that there is a very strong demand for .eu both from EU nationals and from non-EU companies and individuals that wish to create a virtual European presence. As such, ICANN should allocate it to the European Union as soon as possible. It would seem from the comments of Mr Liikanen that the EU Commission is willing (and ideally placed) to "oversee" it. That said, many vital questions will need to be answered before it is activated, many of which are identical to the questions that we need to ask in respect of the creation of any new gTLD. Not least of which is the question of whether .eu domains should be registered on a "first come first served" basis (as per the .com), or somehow restricted to "EU" territorials (whether companies or individuals). Personally I prefer the former, provided that a set of rules as to who is entitled to register the .eu domain are in place first (as well as an excellent dispute procedure). It seems to me that as the EU is not a country (ISO has not allocated "EU" as yet) - and presuming that the .eu domain is to be available globally - then it may fall to WG-C to take responsibility for determining its future. - -----Original Message----- From: Keith Gymer [mailto:keith.gymer@btinternet.com] Sent: 03 February 2000 10:05 To: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU The European Commission Working paper on the creation of the .EU Internet top level domain, dated 2nd February, 2000 is available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg13/index.htm It is open for public comment for 6 weeks - ie apparently until 15 March 2000 The paper specifically seeks answers to six key questions: Question 1: Please comment on the above outline of the delegation of the .EU TLD to a Registration organisation: the Registry. Are there alternative models for the Registry organisation that should be considered? Question 2: What should be the main criteria for the .EU Registry's registration policies? How should the registration policy be developed and implemented? By the Registry organisation, by a distinct consultative body or by the European Commission itself? Question 3: Would it be appropriate to apply the WIPO disputes and trademark policies as reflected in their May 1999 Report to the .EU Domain, or are there alternative solutions to these issues within the European Union? Might there be a specific role for the Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market in Alicante in this context? Question 4: To what extent might a more constraining instrument in the European Union or in WIPO reinforce protection of names and marks in the DNS, in addition to alternative dispute resolution? In that case which categories of names should be protected and how should they be determined? Question 5: Do potential business users, including small and medium sized enterprises have any suggestions as to how the .EU domain might be managed in order to optimise its contribution to the development of electronic commerce in Europe? Question 6: Are there any other considerations that should be taken into account about the relationships between the proposed .EU Registry and the national ccTLD Registries in the Member States? Keith Gymer PAGE HARGRAVE Manfield House 1 Southampton Street London WC2R 0LR T: +44 (0)20 7240 6933 F: +44 (0)20 7379 0268 Email: london@pagehargrave.co.uk Web: www.pagehargrave.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 22:33:21 +1300 From: Joop Teernstra Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs At 16:19 3/02/00 -0500, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: >At 03:58 PM 2/3/00 , Jay Parker wrote: >>that arena, and could utilize a regional designation to create social and >>economic opportunities as a collective. There's really no debating the idea >>that, in general, the region could use all the economic opportunity it can >>get. > >Hi Jay, > >This is a poignant plea. However, it also highlights >the fact that EU and other regional TLDs are merely >a species of generic TLD loosely associated with a >political-economic organization brand. Once an EU >domain were denominated, non-discriminatory treatment >would compel similar benefits to be accorded every >other political economic association in the world. > >The dubious aspect of all this is whether it brings >any additional benefits at all to those in the region >concerned. The only one it would seem to benefit >is the organization involved. > Tony and Jay, I could see clear benefits for registrants in a .eu TLD. It is a regional identification for all those who might wish to identify their on-line presence as European. Depending on how "open" the registry is going to be, it could be a TLD for individuals and companies from EU member states, but also from non-members states, as long as they wish to identify their Domain as European. It could be the TLD that becomes the success that .us did not. - --Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , founder of the Cyberspace Association, the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners http://www.idno.org (or direct:) http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 03:43:40 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 04-Feb-2000 Joop Teernstra wrote: > At 16:19 3/02/00 -0500, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: >>At 03:58 PM 2/3/00 , Jay Parker wrote: >>>that arena, and could utilize a regional designation to create social and >>>economic opportunities as a collective. There's really no debating the idea >>>that, in general, the region could use all the economic opportunity it can >>>get. >> >>Hi Jay, >> >>This is a poignant plea. However, it also highlights >>the fact that EU and other regional TLDs are merely >>a species of generic TLD loosely associated with a >>political-economic organization brand. Once an EU >>domain were denominated, non-discriminatory treatment >>would compel similar benefits to be accorded every >>other political economic association in the world. >> >>The dubious aspect of all this is whether it brings >>any additional benefits at all to those in the region >>concerned. The only one it would seem to benefit >>is the organization involved. >> > > Tony and Jay, > > I could see clear benefits for registrants in a .eu TLD. > It is a regional identification for all those who might wish to identify > their on-line presence as European. > Depending on how "open" the registry is going to be, it could be a TLD for > individuals and companies from EU member states, but also from non-members > states, as long as they wish to identify their Domain as European. > > It could be the TLD that becomes the success that .us did not. > As I and others have said, the real issue is not the TLD itself, and its usefullness, but rather the process and methodology they are using to try and get it added. The EU people should be campaigning for the new TLD process to be completed and completed fairly, and commit themselves to working within that process, rather than trying to use a political end run game to force their way in. By doing that they are setting a dangerous precedent, that will do more harm than good to people who truly want to see the name space expanded in a fair and open manner. - - -- William X. Walsh DSo Networks http://dso.net/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: DSo Networks iD8DBQE4mrts8zLmV94Pz+IRAoWRAJ0bo0+K9OajhinwBYmwticUJmUNRwCbBoNz n7toSKsR+jysnZG/zpHkzeo= =OXD3 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #3 ************************